Email Log Discovery
Dear Monroe Township School District (Middlesex),
This is a request for public records made under OPRA and the common law right of access. I am not required to fill out an official form. Please acknowledge receipt of this message.
Records requested:
Email logs for Michele Arminio - January 01, 2021-December 31st, 2022.
Include: To, from, subject, dates sent or received
Yours faithfully,
Anonymous
I am out of the office and will return Thursday, April 7, 2022. I will
respond to your email upon my return.
Good evening,
The Board is in receipt of your Open Public Records Act ("OPRA") request. Your request requires additional time to respond due to the significant demands placed on the District with regard to the COVID-19 pandemic and OPRA requests. OPRA allows custodians to seek extensions of time pursuant to N.J.S.A. 47:1A-5(i). Specifically, OPRA states that “the requestor shall be advised by the custodian when the record can be made available. If the record is not made available by that time, access shall be deemed denied.” Accordingly, your request requires an extension of time until May 10, 2022.
Good evening,
The District is in receipt of your request for records under the Open Public Records Act. Your request sought Email logs for Michele Arminio - January 01, 2021-December 31st, 2022. Include: To, from, subject, dates sent or received. Your request is denied. A proper request under OPRA must identify with reasonable clarity those documents that are desired. See Bent v. Stafford Police Department, 381 N.J. Super. 30, 37 (App. Div. 2005). In particular, OPRA "operates to make identifiable government records ‘readily accessible for inspection, copying, or examination.’ N.J.S.A. 47:1A-1.” MAG Entm't, LLC v. Div. of Alcoholic Beverage Control, 375 N.J. Super. 534, 543 (App. Div. 2005).
Dear Reeshemah Zielinski,
The records sought are within the boundaries of the law, see below. Please produce the records as required by law. This is a formal request to provide the records: 5/11/2022 5:20PM
It’s not very often we hear from our State’s Supreme Court on cases involving the Open Public Records Act (“OPRA”). On June 20, 2017, the New Jersey Supreme Court in Paff v. Galloway Township expanded the scope of OPRA to require public entities to produce information relating to the “sender,” “recipient,” “date,” and “subject” of emails even if that means the agency would need to create a new document.
In June 2013, John Paff made an OPRA request under N.J.S.A. 47:1A-1 et seq. to Galloway Township (“Township”) seeking fields of information from all emails sent by the Township Clerk and the Township Police Chief for a specific two-week period. Paff sought an itemized list of the following categories of information in each email: “sender,” “recipient,” “date,” and “subject” – often referred to as an email log. He provided the Township with an email log produced by the Township in response to a similar request six months earlier. The Township denied Paff’s OPRA request explaining that only the emails were government records subject to disclosure, not the embedded information. The Township, like many public entities, took the position that the information sought by Paff by way of an email log would require it to create a new government record, which it is not obligated to do under OPRA.
After the Township denied the OPRA request, Paff initiated a complaint in the New Jersey Superior Court. The trial court ordered the production of the field information, reasoning that N.J.S.A. 47:1A-1.1 defines a “government record” as “information stored or maintained electronically.” In contrast, the Appellate Division reversed, concluding that OPRA requires only the production of the emails and not the information electronically stored. Unfortunately for the Township, the Supreme Court disagreed with the Appellate Division and reversed, reasoning that the Appellate Division narrowly interpreted OPRA contrary to its objectives or statutory language.
Pertinent to the Supreme Court’s analysis were the following facts. First, between 2011 and 2012, the Township routinely produced email logs approximately 100 times. Second, the Township’s technology allowed it to produce the fields of information within a few minutes which demonstrated no significant technological burden. Third, the Township’s Clerk contacted the Government Records Council (“GRC”) seeking clarification whether it could deny email log requests on the basis that it did not maintain such logs and is not requested to create records under OPRA. The GRC responded that while its guidance did not “constitute legal advice,” the GRC and the Courts have held that public entities are not required to create new records.
The Supreme Court viewed the issue as one of statutory interpretation and agreed with the trial court that OPRA defines a “government record” as “information stored or maintained electronically.” The Court further reasoned that the Legislature did not define government records as only documents or files maintained electronically – rather the key word is information. Specifically, the Supreme Court found:
Yours sincerely,
Anonymous
Dear Reeshemah Zielinski,
Other agencies have provided this level of data without charges. The amount of time that you are associating with this request is excessive, given the technology that the district employs.
Please amend the request to only include Skurbe and Bierman. This will likely provide a much smaller record for you to PRODUCE.
Yours sincerely,
Anonymous